Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Sheer nonsense. It spreads by area code, not skin colour.

;)

I don't think people in those area codes are getting the disease because they refuse to get the vaccines. 

All adults in Hot Spots can only start booking appointments today. Otherwise they had to wait inline at pop-up clinics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boges said:

I don't think people in those area codes are getting the disease because they refuse to get the vaccines. 

All adults in Hot Spots can only start booking appointments today. Otherwise they had to wait inline at pop-up clinics. 

No need for conjecture. I’ve already provided the ctv link that identifies who the true anti-vaxers are, and why they have such high infection rates in certain area codes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No need for conjecture. I’ve already provided the ctv link that identifies who the true anti-vaxers are, and why they have such high infection rates in certain area codes. 

Mind doing so again? 

It's not vaccines that are causing the spread. There are plenty of cultural issues, but I have seen no statistics that say they don't want vaccines. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Mind doing so again? 

It's not vaccines that are causing the spread. There are plenty of cultural issues, but I have seen no statistics that say they don't want vaccines. 

No, already did it twice now. Wouldnt want to make the forum seem dull by posting the same things over and over.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

No, already did it twice now. Wouldnt want to make the forum seem dull by posting the same things over and over.

Well it wasn't in this thread. 

I've seen no evidence of any appreciable vaccine hesitancy in Ontario. People in the Hot Spots are lining up at Community Centres to get shots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the whole idea that it is possible to protect an arbitrary area in a high-density community and without isolation has not been proven and a number of legitimate concerns can be raised.

1. The infection can easily move to another area maybe right next to the appointed codes.

2. If vaccinated and unprotected populations interact for extended time, it can facilitate development of new vaccine-resistant strains. If such a strain would emerge randomly in someone who has been vaccinated it could jump to unprotected population.

3. And not in the least, ethics and equitability: there were reports that some 55+ who booked awhile back are still waiting for their appointments. These are considered vulnerable, in UK for example it's 50+ and how fair it is to give vaccines to 18 year olds by some arbitrary decision and not to these people?

All in all I'm afraid that the decisions of this scope and complexity are way beyond the grasp of our public bureaucracy. There's no sustained and sound plan, just some random twitching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, myata said:

3. And not in the least, ethics and equitability: there were reports that some 55+ who booked awhile back are still waiting for their appointments. These are considered vulnerable, in UK for example it's 50+ and how fair it is to give vaccines to 18 year olds by some arbitrary decision and not to these people?

Not if they really wanted one. 

BTW with variants, it seems, younger people are just as "vulnerable". 

Supply has been a big issue. I got a vaccine because I was on top of it as soon as I was able. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Boges said:

Not if they really wanted one. 

BTW with variants, it seems, younger people are just as "vulnerable". 

Supply has been a big issue. I got a vaccine because I was on top of it as soon as I was able. 

To get it, but not be hospitalized or die.  Older people are still multiple times more likely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

BTW with variants, it seems, younger people are just as "vulnerable".

Seems from TV stories? Certainly not from the statistics. We have to address the problem straight: if someone in a vulnerable group made an effort to get vaccinated and still did not get it; while it is readily available to someone not in that group, this is a clear fairness issue. It should have been figured out and someone is paid good money exactly to figure out these things, but as becoming a tradition here, in place of working solutions and real results we get scary stories and heartfelt appeals. Plus hectic, poorly substantiated and hardly sustainable imitation of action.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, myata said:

Seems from TV stories? Certainly not from the statistics. We have to address the problem straight: if someone in a vulnerable group made an effort to get vaccinated and still did not get it; while it is readily available to someone not in that group, this is a clear fairness issue. It should have been figured out and someone is paid good money exactly to figure out these things, but as becoming a tradition here, in place of working solutions and real results we get scary stories and heartfelt appeals. Plus hectic, poorly substantiated and hardly sustainable imitation of action.

Exactly.  I’m not sure where this panic porn is coming from.  Whether it’s covid or ANY variants, it’s far more serious to people older with co-morbidities.  Science overwhelmingly tells us this fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Boges said:

Well it wasn't in this thread. 

I've seen no evidence of any appreciable vaccine hesitancy in Ontario. People in the Hot Spots are lining up at Community Centres to get shots. 

As stated, I have shared it with you twice already, Boges. Here is the last time-

Link

But you know what they say about old folks... "the memroy is the first thing to go!"   ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, priority distribution by an arbitrary factor such as postal code not only violates fairness and equitability but also makes little sense practically. And maybe that's why we don't see it commonly in the countries with more functional democracy? In the same postal code there are in most, 90%+ of cases, areas astronomically different by their risk of exposure, and contact with each other. Prosperous mansion neighborhood with priority vaccination 18+ simply by virtue of the code, really (observed personally)? This can be a quick publicity stamp a la "our frontline heroes, yes together" (I with my 20 K monthly entitlement and you happy to make that in a year, in some of the highest risk work environments) but it holds no water in any practical sense.

Of course targeted programs in highest impacted communities should be possible; however to have a meaning and real effect it has to be done intelligently rather than by a bureaucratic check, order - announcement - done and who cares that happens we already moved on.

The targeted communities need to be well defined. They have to buy into the program at certain minimal level of coverage within a short administration time or it wouldn't make noticeable difference in protection. And once the conditions are ready, vaccination has to be performed promptly within short window to prevent prolonged close contact between vaccinated and not.

And if these conditions aren't met then very likely it wouldn't make much practical difference other than a good looking pose but which one do we really care about? Instead it would make sense to continue with uniform vaccination of vulnerable population in the shortest time and then to general population. Just as seen in most countries with more functional democracy and effective public administrations. More than a year after the arrival of Covid and almost twenty after SARS-1 we finally began to try something new. Is it sound though, does it make sense and would it make real difference? It may not be obvious but who is thinking and discussing?

 

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question here is, does hotspot activity affect in any way 1) priority and 2) general vaccinations? If not, if it's entirely in addition to the planned program then OK, why not - but it isn't very likely given that it uses common resources and we have no way of finding out.

Otherwise, it can delay effective protection of the vulnerable groups and general population while showing little practical benefit unless executed intelligently, selectively and comprehensively but we see little evidence of that. And so added risk to the society for a political pose of the government, nothing really original here. The report on long-term care came and gone. As though anything there could not have been predicted after SARS-1 in 2002-03.

P.S. it's not when "booking is available" but approximately two weeks after minimal fraction of population (I saw numbers 60-70%) has been vaccinated. The former is a bureaucratic checkmark, the latter, a meaningful target.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As of today, all 18+ residents of the Region of Peel, who have the highest per capital infection rate in the Province can book a vaccination through the Online Portal. 

I guess this will show if Vaccine Hesitancy is an issue here, like it is in the US. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...